 |
 |
 March 23, 2007
KINSLEY AND PURGEGATE....I'm a little unsure of how to respond to this, but let's try it this way. Let's pretend it's 1973. How does this sound?
Anyone buying that? No? It's the same deal with the U.S. Attorneys. Putting in your own people during a change of administration, as Clinton and Bush both did, is routine. Firing them in the middle of an administration -- especially when you can't explain why you did it and your damage control stories are comically implausible -- looks pretty suspicious. Like maybe you did it to send a message about who should (Democrats) and who shouldn't (Republicans) be investigated in cases of political corruption. And that, to paraphrase the Trickster, would be wrong. Of course, maybe not. Maybe it's all above board. But under the circumstances it sure seems worth asking a few questions about the whole mess under oath, doesn't it? —Kevin Drum 12:48 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (116)Comments
Kinsley writes: (emp add) David Brooks has an excellent column today, and not for the usual reasons that liberals praise Brooks (and he drives conservatives crazy): because he comes halfway toward us.And in Brooks' column you read: David Iglesias seems to have been improperly let go because he offended some members of the president’s party. Iglesias merely "offenced" some Republicans. Not "Iglesias refused to press bogus charges against Democrats". Kinsley is praising Brooks. What an embarassment. Posted by: Quiddity on March 23, 2007 at 1:11 AM | PERMALINKKevin, Kinsley deserves much harsher treatment for that piece. You at least answered his "points" sufficiently to make him look foolish; he deserved to be made to look imbecilic, but it will suffice. Really, I think that the problem in political journalism is that once familiarity has bred contempt, the journalist decides "ah, well -- might as well make it entertaining." Posted by: dj moonbat on March 23, 2007 at 1:18 AM | PERMALINKExcellent! Well said, Kevin! Kinsley can't be stupid enough to miss the point. So the question is, why is he carry water for the shrub? Posted by: Amit Joshi on March 23, 2007 at 1:19 AM | PERMALINK...Does that even make sense? Posted by: American Hawk on March 23, 2007 at 1:18 AM | PERMALINK You never make sense. It's hard to credit you are that stupid but that's better than considering that you are woven from the same blinkered, dissembling, greedy, politically doctrinaire, expedient, narrow-minded, knowledge-from-a-base-of-ignorance, dishonest, vengeful thread that our President and his administration seem to be. But then again, it explains how obtuse you are. Okay, so let me get this straight: It's okay to fire all the US attorneys for political reasons at the start of an administration. If some of those attorneys turn out to be incompetent, however, it's impermissible to fire them. So, if somebody can get a government job, they can't be fired? Does that even make sense?
So, if somebody can get a government job, they can't be fired? Does that even make sense? American Hawk, nope. This is another edition of Simple Answers to Simple Questions. Posted by: Al on March 23, 2007 at 1:30 AM | PERMALINKWhat's wrong with this Kinsley guy? I thought he was supposed to be smart or something. Why is he having so much trouble comprehending this? Posted by: Lee on March 23, 2007 at 1:31 AM | PERMALINKKinsley's column is an embarrassment of stupidity, but let's look at his conclusion: "I do tend to think that the solution is in electoral politics—punish liars by voting against them-- and not in subpoenas and hearings and special prosecutors and impeachment talk and all the other paraphernalia of scandal." That might have been the correct solution if this scandal had come to light in mid-2004. But this is mid-2007, with almost two years to go on a lame-duck presidency. ITMFA! Posted by: Joel Rubinstein on March 23, 2007 at 1:33 AM | PERMALINKThe whole group of alleged 'bloggers' over at Swampland - Klein, Cox, Carney, and now Kinsley - seem to have made some cynical pact to post one lame, ill-informed, moronic post after another in an effort to drum up traffic to the site. There can be no other explanation. Aside from Carney's acknowledgement of how wrong he was about Josh Marshall's investigation into Purgegate, that whole mess has been just about completely unreadable. But oh, look at the hundreds of comments! Their plan seems to be working. Posted by: Stranger on March 23, 2007 at 1:39 AM | PERMALINKNotice that Drum feels compelled to insert the obligatory weaselly "Of course it may all be above board" nonsense. Of course we may still find those WMD, you never know. . . . Posted by: Gordon on March 23, 2007 at 1:52 AM | PERMALINKEither relentless smart-alecky contrarianism gradually impairs one's abilities to perceive reality, or that neurological disease really does have an intermittent effect on Kinsley's ability to reason. This case is just not that complicated. The White House fired a group of US Attorneys because they weren't pursuing partisan political investigations, in order to send a message to all US Attorneys that they had better get with the GOP's program of using the law enforcement system to harass Democrats and score political points. The more we learn, the clearer it becomes that this is what happened. And the White House has been unable to offer any alternative explanation. You can try and make it more complex and find all kinds of counterintuitive ways to think about this. But that's pointless and stupid. Posted by: brooksfoe on March 23, 2007 at 1:59 AM | PERMALINKKinsley's post illustrates nicely: 1) Even the most lauded pundits in the DC sphere are not nearly as smart as they think they are, and So you wind up with the beltway media stroking each other, explaining how complicated these issues *really* are. The comments to Kinsley's post are uncommonly good, and mostly vicious. Posted by: Sam Spade on March 23, 2007 at 2:06 AM | PERMALINK"Powerline is written by three elite lawyers, and they've done some excellent work showing how incompetent Fitzgerald is. Just go to powerlineblog.com and search for Fitzgerald." "Three elite lawyers". Yes, that's the characterization I've often used for the fiercely non-partisan Powerline Blog! Really, American Hawk and others of your species, why do you even bother sending us these little missives from the Gamma Quadrant? We'll go on living in our corner of the space-time continuum, and you can go on living in yours, whatever the hell it is. But really, this intellectual self-mutilation is a wretched thing to see. Get help. Posted by: Dave L on March 23, 2007 at 2:09 AM | PERMALINKPowerline is written by three elite lawyers, and they've done some excellent work showing how incompetent Fitzgerald is. Just go to powerlineblog.com and search for Fitzgerald. Please enlighten us. What is their beef against Fitzgerald. Are those guys bitching about the Libby case? Posted by: This Machine Kills Fascists on March 23, 2007 at 2:10 AM | PERMALINKYou know....I read Kinsley's piece and I was SO tempted to begin refuting it, but after I read about 100 comments, all of them showing Michael the error of his ways and in such eloquent prose I decided....why bother. He might see where he was wrong.......or more likely, he still doesn't get it and never will. I was especially moved by his suggestion that subponeas and the possibility of impeachment should be dropped in favor of just throwing the bums out with the next election. Unfortunately Michael, while we are waiting here for this genteel way of cleaning the stable, the boys down in the engine room are tearing apart the Constitution, habeas corpus, human rights, privacy provisions, and global warming....all while stealing us blind and running an illegal and immoral war. Hope you can understand our impatience. Posted by: dweb on March 23, 2007 at 2:10 AM | PERMALINKKinsley is an ass. If he can look at this White House and this Justice department and still try to excuse he needs to lose his position as a pundit. Klein, Kinsley the lot of them need to go. It's why CNN sucks under Time-Warner management. They have no idea what the fuck is going on in the world. I personally am sick of over paid apologists gracing our print pages and tv sets day after day after day. We have a crisis bigger than Watergate and Kinsley wants to try to figure out how it could have stayed in the closet longer. Wake the fuck up man (Kinsley)! If pundits were ranked by karma we would quickly see how disrespected most of the current class of punditry really is. Whoever passed out the silver spoons to this generation of "journalists" needs to have his trust fund pulled. Disgusting is what this is. How can anyone in the political classes possibly still AT THIS POINT be looking back to Clinton to try to justify the clusterfuck this administration has created constitutionally, domestically, economically, militarily? Forget marching on Washington. Let's start by marching on the headquarters of Time-Warner and friends. Posted by: patience on March 23, 2007 at 2:13 AM | PERMALINKSo, in the latest breaking news involving the Bush administration's purging of U.S. Attorneys... ...Abu Gonzales wants to remain attorney general so he can keep protecting the kids? I would have loved to have been at the presser to ask him: “Hey, Alberto, what were you doing last year before the election to protect the “kids” in the House Page Office from Rep. Mark Foley?” Or, “Alberto, when did you and Rove as well as other top White House officials first learn that Rep. Mark Foley was hitting on House pages?” Or, “Alberto, as head of the Justice Department, did you try to get U.S. Attorneys around the country to “pushback” against the negative news coverage last October regarding the Foley scandal by having the U.S. Attorneys bring trumped-up cases against Democrats over bogus voter fraud charges?” In other words, it is quite obvious that Gonzales, Rove and the White House had turned the U.S. Attorneys into “hatchet men” for White House political purposes. Apparently, eight U.S. Attorneys weren’t the “hatchet men” that the White House hoped they would be, so they were unceremoniously fired. They either were too aggressive in going after corrupt Republicans (as in Carol Lam’s case) or weren’t toeing the political timeline in unsealing indictments against Democrats (as in David Iglesias’ case). However, the timing of the firing of these U.S. Attorneys still hinges, I believe, on what happened in the two months preceding their firing, no matter what communications have been released which indicate that Bush officials have been contemplating their removal since shortly after the 2004 elections. And in this two months pre-firing period, besides the Republicans losing big in the November elections, the only event that stands out as having done the most damage to Republicans before the election is the Mark Foley scandal, with extensive coverage peaking in October and lasting through election day, especially with news that top House Republicans had known about Rep. Mark Foley hitting on House pages for quite some time…without doing anything to stop him. Therefore, it is my contention that many of the missing emails discussing the firing of U.S. Attorneys contain references to the Foley scandal and some U.S. Attorneys not doing enough to “pushback” against the negative (for Republicans) news coverage in their district in the lead up to the November elections last year. So, “Alberto, when did you and Rove know about Mark Foley hitting on House pages and what did you, especially, do to protect these “kids” from a sexual predator from your own political party?” Posted by: The Oracle on March 23, 2007 at 2:28 AM | PERMALINKBrooksfoe, well said. Dave L, you beat me to it. Of course, the southern dried chicken might come from that same obscure quadrant as his 3 "elite" lawyers. It's way out there in a nebula far away, an empire called Declarationism, the planet Claremont, the leader Harry Jaffa, scion of the embalmed Leo Strauss, and they burn the eternal flame of the combined spirit of all the "Founding Fathers", "Abe L" and "WSC", a feat never otherwise achieved in physics, philosophy or theology. These jaffarites swear to disperse over the universe and annoy and distract as many people as possible with meaningless, incoherent piffle. Hence AH. The same is true of other competing ideologies that all revolve around the AEI/PNAC/Heritage black hole. Hopefully they will all soon disappear up their reverse orifice. This could be "pre-emptive" political strategy on the part of Republicans in regards to a scenario of Dems taking the presidency in 2008. What if you highlight political firings of a few Repub attorneys now, and then when a Dem administration takes charge in 2008 and the expected spoils firings occur.... you have an ersatz scandal for the Dems at that time. Would Dems balk at the usual "change of the guard" and fail to fire Repub USA's? Would this work to advantage in the long term for the Republicans? Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on March 23, 2007 at 2:47 AM | PERMALINKMichael Kinsley: " I do tend to think that the solution is in electoral politics—punish liars by voting against them-- and not in subpoenas and hearings and special prosecutors and impeachment talk and all the other paraphernalia of scandal. Well, geeze Mike, how does that make sense when the very scandal being investigated is interference with elections? As Krugman has astutely pointed out, the real scandal is not the eight U.S. Attorneys that were fired (although that is a nice start) for refusing to go along with the uneven application of justice. It is the other U.S. attorneys that have investigated 298 Democrats (the sheer numbers indicate many for political reasons), and who knows how many Republicans were not prosecuted who should have been. To my mind the two most important attributes of a free society are free speech and fair elections. If you don't have those two, there is no way the other rights we have can be protected. By investigating Democratic candidates, and bringing bogus voter fraud charges, the current administration has been corrupting one of our two most basic rights -- the necessary right to fair elections. I cannot express how important and harmful this could be to our country, and how ineffective your solution is. It is a classic catch 22 situation -- fix the problem with elections, but the problem you have to fix is that the elections are not fair. That's some catch that catch 22. Posted by: patrick on March 23, 2007 at 3:08 AM | PERMALINKI just LOVE how this is turning out to be such a litmus test of who is loyal to whom, who is in whose pocket, and who knows even the basic principles governing the separation of powers and the rule of law. Water-carriers for the Administration say there was nothing wrong with the firings because (1) USAs are part of the executive branch (overly simplistic), (2) these people serve at the pleasure of the president (true, but subject to limitations), and (3) the Congressional sniffing is just partisan politics Well-intentioned fools -- such as Don Imus -- say (1) executive branch, therefore (2) at the pleasure of the president, therefore (3) even if there was partisan politics involved, hey, that's the game, these people are supposed to "play ball". Get over it... Confused commentators: (1) executive branch, (2) pleasure of the president, (3) Clinton "did it too", (4) Dems in Congress are being partisan, therefore (5) probably nothing much going on here. Only a few are getting it right -- like Josh Marshall: 1. Executive Branch? -- yes, but it's not that simple. The rule of law means prosecutors need to be insulated from partisan considerations. In other words, partisan policy can set priorities, but it cannot be allowed to target or protect individuals who might be subject to prosecution; This scandal is shining a bright light on a lot of people. It allows us to see who knows the legal/constitional basics, who knows the specific facts, who cares about the rule of law, and who is working to protect the Administration for partisan reasons. I can't remember a scandal that has been more precise and surgical in its hermeneutic value. I LOVE it. And we can also see that Al and American Hawk are showing us, once again, that, even though they have been duped and lied to by their heroes, they still believe. They still sing the hymns and drink the Kool-Aid. It's almost sad. Show us what you care about, guys! We could see it months ago when the tea-leaves were a little harder to read, but now that the evidence if WH malfeasance, lies, and corruption is so clear, keep telling us what you value! Special message is Squawk-speak: Is that a bit easier for you, then? Posted by: Kenji on March 23, 2007 at 4:03 AM | PERMALINKI do tend to think that the solution is in electoral politics—punish liars by voting against them-- and not in subpoenas and hearings and special prosecutors and impeachment talk and all the other paraphernalia of scandal. I do too, it's called the 2006 election and the voters overwhelmingly rejected republican corruption and put the Democrats in control of both houses of congress so they could investigate the excesses of the Bush administration through subpoenas and hearings. Dependent on what these turn up, you may have impeachment and all the other of paraphernalia of scandal, because the Democrats are serving at the pleasure of the voters. Posted by: AnotherBruce on March 23, 2007 at 4:14 AM | PERMALINKYs, whatever other faults the Dems have, most have the West Wing idea that they are at lest nominally public servants. Translation for egfart: public servants are... oh, never mind. You couldn´t possibly grasp the concept. How are your Korean lessons going? Dear Leader awaits your unquestioning fealty--but He wonders why you are taking so long to reveal your Manchurian candidacy? Posted by: Kenji on March 23, 2007 at 4:20 AM | PERMALINKAnotherBruce has it right. When I cast my vote in 2006 it was really so that people like Henry Waxman and Patrick leahy would get subpeona power. So let the subpeonas fly! Posted by: fostert on March 23, 2007 at 4:31 AM | PERMALINKWhat's wrong with this Kinsley guy? I thought he was supposed to be smart or something. Why is he having so much trouble comprehending this? Posted by: Lee on March 23, 2007 at 1:31 AM There's only one explanation for this conundrum: that isn't Michael Kinsley. It must be some Mary Rosh/spettazura character created by the editors of Time Magazine in order to defame the otherwise common-sensical commentator that we all knew and loved throughout the years and to further their right-wing agenda. Posted by: ItAintEazy on March 23, 2007 at 5:40 AM | PERMALINKApparently the struggle of a people to be free makes too much noise for Kinsley. Or something. I'm sure whoever pays him thinks that it is a good idea to do so, but does that mean anyone has to care what he writes or says? Why don't we just focus on those who have addressed American politics honestly, accurately and intelligently for the last ten years? Kinsley isn't in that group, so why should anyone care what he writes or says? He has nothing to add. Posted by: James E. Powell on March 23, 2007 at 5:48 AM | PERMALINKKevin, you are light years ahead of Kinsley intellectually and in integrity. The first glaring fallacy in Kinsley's hypothetical comparison of Bush to Clinton -- the Clinton analogy -- is that Clinton would have had to have gotten Senate confirmation for his replacement nominees as required by Article II of the Constitution. Not so when Bush fired the USAs. And if, hypothetically, Clinton had had legal authorization to circumvent confirmation of USA nominees to replace the holdovers he had fired during his second term, Kinsley wants us to believe no one would have batted an eyelash in the Repub-controlled Senate of 1997? Sure. Clinton would have gotten two thumbs up from Trent Lott and company. Uh-huh. Then the next question I have of Kinsley is why was a provision that permitted the Bush WH to avoid nomination and Senate confirmation of prosecutorial appointees slipped into the renewal of the Patriot Act in March 2006 by Arlen Specter's chief counsel (unbeknownst to the senator) at the request of a DOJ official named Tollman? Riddle me that one, Batman. Furthermore, in an email Kyle Sampson wrote, he strongly recommend[ed] ...as a matter of policy... the new statutory provision that authorize[d] the AG to make USA appointments be utilized which also [gave] far less deference to home-state Senators to get... [their] preferred person appointed. Yeah, nothing fishy about that. Jeso Pete! How gullible does Time's Swampland think we are? Kinsley: But I still have to wonder: If Karl Rove had gotten his way and Bush had fired all 93 US Attorneys at the beginning of his second term, would you (that’s you, Brad DeLong, and Kevin Drum, among others) actually have shrugged it off as no big deal?I seriously doubt that the appointment of 93 USAs by Abu Gonzales without Senate approval or the blessing of home-state Senators would have been no big deal for any sane person with a functioning brain (with the exception of the Bush rubber-stamp servatrons). But this jewel of Kinsley's... I do tend to think that the solution is in electoral politics—punish liars by voting against them-- and not in subpoenas and hearings and special prosecutors and impeachment talk and all the other paraphernalia of scandal....abdicates the rule of law, congressional oversight, and holding a “comically mendacious” administration accountable to the people. No one is above the law. We could not throw the presidential bum out of office because oversight of this WH didn't exist in 2004 and was not operative until January 2007, much too late to use Kinsley's remedy to "punish liars by voting against them." But with the 2006 midterm election, we did punish those who relinquished their legislative responsibilities and voters gave this Congress a mandate to now investigate the abuses of this "worse than Watergate" presidency. Please note: unlike many Repubs, not one Democratic incumbent lost a seat. Not one! Dems took back the majority in the House and Senate. That speaks loudly against "a cavalier attitude about official lying." Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 23, 2007 at 6:02 AM | PERMALINKI seriously doubt that the appointment of 93 USAs by Abu Gonzales without Senate approval or the blessing of home-state Senators would have been no big deal... Obviously, the above statement is wrong in that the Patriot Act provision permitting the AG to appoint USAs did not exist in January 2005. My bad. But why would a president replace all of his USA holdovers at the onset of his second term? "If Karl Rove had gotten his way," it would have raised suspicions as Kevin points out and merited one helluva of an explanation. Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 23, 2007 at 6:34 AM | PERMALINKt the request of a DOJ official named Tollman... Sheesh! Missed the TPMMucker update that "incorrectly originally stated that Tolman worked for the Justice Department. In fact, he worked as counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which Specter was Chairman at the time." Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 23, 2007 at 7:04 AM | PERMALINKAmerican Hawk: "If some of those attorneys turn out to be incompetent, however, it's impermissible to fire them." Only one of the eight attorneys -- San Francisco's Kevin Ryan -- could reasonably be cited for sub-par performance, and we now know from White House e-mails that he was added to the list at the last minute almost as an afterthought, because the Justice Dept. would find it emabarrassing to explain why they kept him while firing the others. I first posted about Ryan on this site several weeks ago. being the notable exception, as I noted in a post several weeks ago -- Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on March 23, 2007 at 7:37 AM | PERMALINKApollo 13: "In fact, he worked as counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which Specter was Chairman at the time." Was that before or after Mr. Specter shot that poor actress in Alhambra, CA? Oops. Wrong guy. Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on March 23, 2007 at 7:41 AM | PERMALINKYeah, I don't know how they all can get away with making this scandal sound so different than it is. Check out my blog for a new post. Posted by: Swan on March 23, 2007 at 7:42 AM | PERMALINKWhat patrick said -- it's insane to say "wait for elections" when the crime committed is an attempt to undermine fair elections. I don't know if impeaching works, but subpoenas sound just fine to me. On-the-other-hand, come 2008, when a Democratic candidate is "investigated" or "indicted" by a Republican USA, he or she will surely have the good sense to declare that the charges are groundless, that they are being promoted by a loyal "Bushie" attorney, and this is why you need to elect more Democrats. It's hard for me to imagine why anyone anywhere is still supporting the Republicans. Look at what they did to the budget. Look at all this corruption. Look at all the dead from Iraq. Look at New Orleans, still in pieces. And they all did it, in lockstep. No matter what happens, party unity and loyalty to the president matters most. I'd like to see the guys we just elected doing a little more to plug the holes in Bush's "emergency" war budgets. Roll back the fat-cat portions of all Bush's tax cuts, at least until the war is paid for. And while we're at, index the AMT, and nudge up the higher brackets to make it revenue neutral. Blue states pay the AMT disproprotionately, might as well dance with them that brung you, and ding the fat cats who (mostly) support King George. Sure, Bush would veto it, let him explain that. My question is: even if we assume that any of these resignations were primarily in response to unwelcome corruption investigations, is that a crime? I've not heard anyone cite a statute, but I guess it might be something like obstruction of justice. Now, if no investigations are actually thwarted is this still obstruction? I believe that the real point that should be made is that their are undoubtedly further corruption cases to be made, and if these resignations hamper one of these, then we have something. Otherwise the whole 'serves at the pleasure of the President' schtick controls, and the best we can do is make Republicans stand up and defend the shoddy treatment of other Republicans. Posted by: jhm on March 23, 2007 at 7:53 AM | PERMALINKIf Clinton had fired just eight, would you have been hammering him for corrupting justice? Well Kinsley himself can seem to put the shoe on the other foot here. Dems didn't need to hammer Clinton – the Republican did it for us. Nothing really wrong with partisanship is there. I do tend to think that the solution is in electoral politics—punish liars by voting against them-- and not in subpoenas and hearings and special prosecutors and impeachment talk and all the other paraphernalia of scandal. OH JEEBUS, what Kinsley do?
Poor Judith Miller finally came around for Patrick Fitzgerald but only after being in jail for a little while, while ruining her own career. There is nothing wrong with pursuing a legal venue. There is nothing wrong with subpoenaing presidential aids or even in changing Scooter Libby with perjury because a lawyer has carefully laid out the facts to establish that indeed Libby "Scooter" willfully lied to everyone. The framework must be laid out, and it's crystal clear that Bush will never comply in any other way. No president can every really call himself the decider in a nation of free people. Indeed we ourselves can't decide if we don't know what the facts are. This thing with the eight fired attorneys is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to oversight and all the facts that congress must thaw in all those coming oversight issues that Dems said they would do. Bush WILL NOT work with congress in ANY OTHER WAY. Bush has never been a diplomat, never been a negotiator like his old man. Bush doesn’t know how to work with other people. Bush has never felt like he has had to explain himself or be accountable to or for anything. There has always been Bush’s way or the highway. That is not democracy, being president doesn’t mean the Bush is king for 4 years, with no oversight required. That's not what this country is all about, not nearly what it’s about. Bush does not believe in any oversight at all but that simply cannot be. Kinsley has become a lawyer/journalist whom zealous represents his cowardly self. Kinsley can’t handle the truth. But Dems have to grow a spine somewhere, we simply will not get reform without repercussions, so it'll have to be the hard way. We wait on Republicans to reform themselves and they WILL NOT DO IT. It's coming down to a fight Kinsley, so go hide soimewhere - you don't belong here. "a purblind oligarchy that flatly refused to see that history was condemning it to the dustbin" That's the mainstream punditocracy. Posted by: anon on March 23, 2007 at 8:19 AM | PERMALINKGonzales told Congress that there was no politics involved. Then, we find out that was crap. Lying to Congress is a criminal offense. You all remember that. Lying to Congress. Don't forget now. Lying to Congress. Carol Lam. Dusty Foggo. Don't forget that. Obstruction of Justice is also a crime. Don't forget that. Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on March 23, 2007 at 8:28 AM | PERMALINK
So Mr. Shocked and Outraged, "Donald From Hawaii," takes me to task for using the term "beeyatch" to describe someone whiny and pathetic who hates America, and then goes on to call me sexist and offensive. In point of fact, Donald From Hawaii complained to Blog Host and Ruler of the Blog Kevin Drum about me. And Donald From Hawaii now has the gall--the unmitigated, hypocritical gall--to make a joke about the alleged cold-blooded murder of a woman by Phil Spector? A woman is dead and Donald From Hawaii makes a funny; Norman Rogers defends America and straightens people out and he gets purloined by liberals for it, every day. I'm here as a public service people, and you should appreciate me. What would you do without me to explain to how things really work? Would you make jokes about dead people and suck eggs? Posted by: Norman Rogers on March 23, 2007 at 8:29 AM | PERMALINKFirst "Glazergate," now a post about how Kingsley sinks even further in to irrelevance. Do the rest of you think Kevin has put the site on autopilot until USC is knocked out of the NCAA mens basketball tournament. The last couple of days he hasn't even been trying. Posted by: Ron Byers on March 23, 2007 at 8:48 AM | PERMALINK
Nonsense. Mr. Drum does a fine job of demonstrating how unhinged and kooky the radical left in this country has become. I applaud his efforts to use the written word to lead the American people down the primrose path to degradation and folly. I am here to stop this tomfoolery with all of the powers that I posess--I've even given myself over to the notion that, one day, I may have to use my two fists--Archibald and Haymaker--to knock some sense into the liberals who may accost me when I travel to the Republican National Convention next year. I am here to correct the record, offer encouragement and advice, and I enjoy every word he writes. Posted by: Norman Rogers on March 23, 2007 at 9:06 AM | PERMALINKOh, my goodness!
To the ramparts! It is war! War, I tell you, war! Powerline is written by three elite lawyers Now I know he's a parody. Posted by: klyde on March 23, 2007 at 9:13 AM | PERMALINKWhy not just quit slinging the righteous-sounding crap and admit it. Bush did nothing illegal in firing attorneys. Or given the information to date, even unethical. If the Democrats had something solid, it would be the headline every day. The only chance the Democrats have left is a televised Karl Rove show trial, hoping to God they can catch somebody under oath in a contradiction or lie, so they finally have a real legal issue to deal with. See also: Clinton, Libby. Then they can drag it out for years in indictments and hearings, with Democrats strutting back and forth in front of the cameras, adding significantly to the atmosphere's CO2 load. Probably methane, too. Of course they don't want to interview Rove--the real target here--off the record. That would just give them information, not the public inquisition they need. The defeat in Vietnam and the destruction of Richard Nixon were the Left's greatest victories. They're trying to repeat history again, like a fat old man reliving his one great touchdown in high school. Posted by: wheeler on March 23, 2007 at 9:42 AM | PERMALINKPosted in response to Kinsely: "And I remain astounded that people find the Clinton analogy not merely wrong but preposterous." Probably because you haven't done your homework, Michael. In a 25-year period (1981-2006), 54 US Attorneys total have left office before the end of their four-year term for reasons other than a change of administration. Of these, only eight total have left for reasons other than death, acceptance of a judiciary appointment, running for elective office, return to private practice, or to serve in the executive branch or a state government. Eight total. Those eight abbreviated terms break down to: - 2 Dismissals: William Kennedy and William J. Petro. Eight total in 25 years versus eight total in a day...Nine, for this administration alone, if you include the replacement of US Attorney for Guam Frederick Black back in 2002, a day after he issued a grand jury subpoena related to Jack Abramoff's lobbying on behalf of the Guam Superior Court. 'The Clinton analogy' is wrong because it is an invalid comparison. It's preposterous because the use of the invalid comparison is just chaff thrown up in an attempt to confuse the issue. "If Clinton had fired just eight, would you have been hammering him for corrupting justice?" If they were motivated by the same reasons that Bush's firings seem to be, then yes. Blocking corruption investigations and removing a US Attorney for not being enough of an administration loyalist are bad things, Michael, no matter whose shoes you're wearing. Posted by: grape_crush on March 23, 2007 at 9:42 AM | PERMALINKThis is not the first time Kinsley has been guilty of bourgeois deviationism. Imagine saying Brooks comes half-way towards us when, at best, he comes five sixteenths towards us. A clear case of false consciousness, and in one who should know better! Isn't there a re-education camp where Kinsley can be struggled? Posted by: JHM on March 23, 2007 at 9:45 AM | PERMALINK
No, you are incorrect sir. Raising taxes during the term of George H W Bush was the single greatest victory of liberal thought in the last forty years. We are still paying the price for that precipitous increase in unfair taxation rates. The US did not "lose" the Vietnam war; the US stopped fighting the Vietnam war in order to quell the outrageous dissent of a vocal minority that threatened to shut down commerce in this country. Their tactics? Shut down America with sit-ins, with the violence wrought by the Black Panthers and with the subversion of our youth by that fellow Wavy Gravy and his acid trips to oblivion. Richard Milhous Nixon was not "destroyed" by the Left; he enjoyed a fruitful and dignified career as an author and speaker in his later years. His Presidency was ended by the incompetence of E Howard Hunt, G Gordon Liddy, and Alexander Haig and by the turncoat betrayer, John Dean. Posted by: Norman Rogers on March 23, 2007 at 9:47 AM | PERMALINK"fat man reliving his one great touchdown" And the Repugs living their one great winning season, before the NCAA took away their title for illegal payoffs to players by over zealous alums. And Nixon destroyed himself. Posted by: thethirdPaul on March 23, 2007 at 9:55 AM | PERMALINKKevin: . . . especially when you can't explain why you did it . . . Of course they can explain it. They simply choose to not explain it and lie instead because the real reasons would make the public react with even more disgust at the ethical and moral putrefaction existing in this administration. Posted by: Google_This on March 23, 2007 at 10:03 AM | PERMALINKIn St. Louis, AG A.G. declares for the second time he won't resign. That's 2 out of 4. wheeler: Bush did nothing illegal in firing attorneys. You don't know that because there hasn't been a full investigation. Thus, you are in effect lying with your premature conclusion. In any event, there is plenty of evidence of lying to Congress, so just like with Libby, there are serious crimes here being committed to keep possible other crimes from being uncovered. Or given the information to date, even unethical. Given the information to date, yes it was unethical. It is clearly unethical to defame governmental attorneys by lying about their performance. If the Democrats had something solid, it would be the headline every day. It is the headline every day and the Democrats already have plenty with clear and unequivocal lying by the Attorney General and his staff and a boatload of incriminating e-mails, but in any event that is why one investigates, to get something. Having something is not a prerequisite to investigation; it is not having something, except lies in this case, the warrants investigation. Your demand that the Democrats have something solid in order to investigate would preclude every investigation ever done by any law enforcement or legislative body - in fact, it would have precluded the investigation of Whitewater and Bill Clinton. As the saying goes, better winger dimwits, please. OT: An Iranian naval patrol seized 15 British sailors who had boarded a vessel suspected of smuggling cars of the coast of Iraq, military officials said. I'm gratified to know that Blair and Bush are fighting the Great War on Terrorism by interdicting automobiles! I'm sure this will stop terrorism cold. Yep, let those nukes, and IEDs, and EFPs in, but stop the automobiles! What a plan! These guys are geniuses! Let's give them more money and time, so they can seize more automobiles! Hey, wheeler, enlist! Even you could stop a shipment of automobiles. Posted by: Google_This on March 23, 2007 at 10:16 AM | PERMALINK"Of course, maybe not. Maybe it's all above board. But under the circumstances it sure seems worth asking a few questions about the whole mess under oath, doesn't it?" - Drum Of course it does Kevin. Anything to avoid the REAL issues.
dzman49: In St. Louis, AG A.G. declares for the second time he won't resign. And why should he resign? After all, lying to Congress is not a crime in Bush's dictionary, at least when it is an act committed by one of his stooges. And obstruction of justice is not a crime either in Bush's dictionary, at least when it is an act committed by one of his stooges. Posted by: Google_This on March 23, 2007 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINKI hate to be realpolitik about it but US attorneys are POLITICAL appointees. As such, their competence is really of secondary importance. Clinton fired all 93 US attorneys, good, bad, and indifferent, and put HIS people in, good, bad, or indifferent. "In any event, there is plenty of evidence of lying to Congress, so just like with Libby, there are serious crimes here being committed to keep possible other crimes from being uncovered." - google something Let's see, six years now into trying to find something incriminating. How's that coming along? You don't know that because there hasn't been a full investigation. Thus, you are in effect lying with your premature conclusion. Is that how our legal system works now? Guilty until the "investigation" proves you innocent? In this kind of political attack a conclusion of "innocent," of course, never happens. There's always one more person to subpoena, one more pile of documents to see, a few more avenues to go down. The investigation is the thing, a great platform for making political points. Finding out the truth is a lot lower on the totem pole. ...the Democrats already have plenty with clear and unequivocal lying by the Attorney General and his staff and a boatload of incriminating e-mails, but in any event that is why one investigates, to get something. If the Democrats already have "plenty," indict somebody. Posted by: wheeler on March 23, 2007 at 10:22 AM | PERMALINKKinsley is like one of those college-freshman dorks that stays up all night with his friends wondering if blue is really blue... This whole issue isn't that hard to understand, and Kevin lays out so that a 10 year-old can get it. Are frontal lobotomies required for editors of all the major dailies, or just those of the Washington Post and LA Times? Posted by: CKT on March 23, 2007 at 10:24 AM | PERMALINKtools, did you even read Drum's post here? If you did, then you're just being an obtuse jackass. For the umpteenth time, changing the attorneys at the beginning of your term is not unusual, changing a few of them for their failure to prosecute members of the opposing party IS unusual. Particularly if you just had a positive performance review. Let's see, six years now into trying to find something incriminating. How's that coming along? ask the recently convicted Scooter Libby. Posted by: haha on March 23, 2007 at 10:27 AM | PERMALINKJay: How's that non-binding resolution coming along? How's your enlistment coming along? How's Bush's poll numbers coming along? How's the GOP's chances in '08 coming along? All seem to be pretty much dead in the water, eh, Jay. Maybe you should just go work on some more lies to post here. The standard ones you keep repeating are getting soooooo old. Posted by: Google_This on March 23, 2007 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK"How's Bush's poll numbers coming along?" - google Higher than Congress's 28%. LMAO!!!
"...ask the recently convicted Scooter Libby." - haha So six years and you succeeded in a weak perjury case in an investigation that has yet to determine any crime.
Let's give them more money and time, so they can seize more automobiles! You might want to look into the story a bit more before splashing your ignorance all over the page. Posted by: wheeler on March 23, 2007 at 10:34 AM | PERMALINKJay: Let's see, six years now into trying to find something incriminating. Not trying anymore. Libby is convicted. Incriminating evidence found, presented, and effective. wheeler: Is that how our legal system works now? Guilty until the "investigation" proves you innocent? Lying about the situation won't help your cause. Guilt is represented by punishment, not by being subjected to questioning, which is part of the investigation phase. But we see your "legal system" works: Repugnicans cannot be investigated and no evidence can be collected against them, ever, until you first prove them guilty. Wonder if you feel the same about murderers, can't ask them questions or investigate their comings and goings, take their fingerprints, question their neighors, or anything else until you first prove they are guilty of the crime, which of course would make the investigation moot. You are either entirely stupid or the most reprehensibly dishonest pr*ck to infect these comments. wheeler: If the Democrats already have "plenty," indict somebody. No, it's clear you are just stupid. Congress cannot "indict." Grand juries indict. What an idiot. If you understand that little about the separate branches, maybe you need to take a refresher course in US Government 101. Posted by: Google_This on March 23, 2007 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINKJay: Higher than Congress's 28%. Which is not an individual, like Bush, so you are comparing apples and oranges, which is what conservatives do when they want to distract from the truth. LMAO even harder at you once again proving for everyone to see how dishonest you are. Posted by: Google_This on March 23, 2007 at 10:39 AM | PERMALINKwheeler: You might want to look into the story a bit more before splashing your ignorance all over the page. What a hoot coming from someone who just spread their ignorance about our legal system and how the US government works all over the page. BTW, there is no more to the story. They were trying to interdict automobiles in a war zone where any reasonable person would conclude that there are higher priorities for a couple of administrations that say they don't have enough resources to get the job done and need to send even more troops to combat violence. I've never heard either Bush or Blair say they need a surge in troops to interdict automobiles, rather than violence in the capital. Jay: So six years and you succeeded in a weak perjury case in an investigation that has yet to determine any crime. Investigations don't determine crimes. Juries do. You suffer from "wheeler syndrome", an inability to comprehend how the legal system works and a willingness to lie about what terms mean and how processes work. Posted by: Google_This on March 23, 2007 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINKWhich is not an individual, like Bush, so you are comparing apples and oranges, which is what conservatives do when they want to distract from the truth. Congress is currently identified by the public, strictly accurately or not, as "Democratic." If its approval rating has dropped to 28 percent, this is not insignificant. Posted by: harry on March 23, 2007 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINKAnd btw, Jay, just in case you were wondering, perjury is a crime, so the investigation did determine a crime. LMAO!!!!! Posted by: Google_This on March 23, 2007 at 10:45 AM | PERMALINKPeople like Kinsley and Broder and Friedman and Cohen have one primary value; keeping their nice cushy writing gigs for major publications. Thus, they write this faux-centrist crap that is calculated not to offend too many people on either side of the political fence. It's the school of "on-the-one-hand, but-then-again-on-the-other hand" journalism. This writing style insures that they continue to be invited to all the right social and professional gatherings. Them cocktail weenies sure taste good... Posted by: global yokel on March 23, 2007 at 10:47 AM | PERMALINKKinsley's column is an embarrassment of stupidity, but let's look at his conclusion: "I do tend to think that the solution is in electoral politics—punish liars by voting against them-- and not in subpoenas and hearings and special prosecutors and impeachment talk and all the other paraphernalia of scandal." That might have been the correct solution if this scandal had come to light in mid-2004. But this is mid-2007, with almost two years to go on a lame-duck presidency. ITMFA! Also, how are the voters even going to find out about the lying without subpoenas and hearings and special prosecutors? Without oversight and investigations the liars can simply keep their lies hushed up, and the voters will never be able to take their malfeasance into account at election time. Posted by: Stefan on March 23, 2007 at 10:53 AM | PERMALINKI´ve never understood what Kinsley had and has to lose by being more honest. He´s obviously smart enough to know better on most issues, and I can´t see how he would suffer, in the long run, by playing it straight. Also, brushes with death usually straighten out a sane person´s priorities. Oh, and Jay--getting pretty feeble there, buddy. Posted by: Kenji on March 23, 2007 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINKstonetools on March 23, 2007 at 10:19 AM: As such, their competence is really of secondary importance. Then why did the Bush administration initially cite competence as a reason for dismissal of the US Attorneys? Why not say that he wanted to put in people more to his liking politically? Because the DOJ is not supposed to be a politicized organization. That's why. Clinton fired all 93 US attorneys, good, bad, and indifferent, and put HIS people in, good, bad, or indifferent. 'The Clinton Analogy, for reasons I stated previously, is an invalid comparison. Clinton dismissed them all at the beginning of his presidency like Bush dismissed them all at the beginning of his presidency. To make a valid comparison, you would have to compare the numbers and reasons for dismissals of US Attorneys after they had been appointed at the beginning of Bush and Clinton's presidency. So...Purgegate is a legitimate issue because of the combination of the following: 1. The number of US Attorneys dismissed mid-term is an anomaly. Are those things enough to raise a red flag to you, stonetools? MK called this one right, IMO. Hardly. Kinsley demonstrates that he has no idea what's going on. Posted by: grape_crush on March 23, 2007 at 10:57 AM | PERMALINKJay on March 23, 2007 at 10:18 AM: Anything to avoid the REAL issues...How's that non-binding resolution coming along? *snickers* Anything to avoid the issue being discussed, Cut-n-Run Jay? Try to change the subject much? Posted by: grape_crush on March 23, 2007 at 11:05 AM | PERMALINKI hate to be realpolitik about it but US attorneys are POLITICAL appointees. As such, their competence is really of secondary importance. No, it's not. USAs are all officers of the court and are charged with enforcing the laws of the United States. As such their competence is paramount. Clinton fired all 93 US attorneys, good, bad, and indifferent, and put HIS people in, good, bad, or indifferent. This has been dealt with many many times already, but (i) all Presidents, not just Clinton, fire the outgoing Admin's USAs at the beginning of their term and (ii) Clinton's people were not "bad or indifferent" because they had to be subject to Senate confirmation. Bush is simply taking out eight people, good, bad, or indifferent and putting in eight more people more to his liking politically. Its really much of a muchness. If by "to his liking politically" means ones who will fail to pursue legitimate corruption cases against Republicans while falsely prosecuting trumped-up cases against Democrats, all in order to use the coercive power of the state's supposedly-impartial justice system to punish political opponents and reward cronies, then yes. But that's not justice -- it's tyranny.
Sure it's worth asking a few questions under oath, but that doesn't necessarily trump executive privilege. I'm afraid that comment of yours was not very helpful or thoughtful, Mr. Drum. Serious articles and blogs have been written about balancing these opposing needs, for example by Lederman and Dyer at beldar.blogs.com, but your comment is not very useful. Posted by: steve on March 23, 2007 at 11:10 AM | PERMALINKOf course they don't want to interview Rove--the real target here--off the record. That would just give them information, not the public inquisition they need. Of course the police don't want to interview Al Capone -- the real target here -- off the record. That would just give them information, not the public inquisition they need. Posted by: Stefan on March 23, 2007 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINKSure it's worth asking a few questions under oath, but that doesn't necessarily trump executive privilege. I'm afraid you don't understand how executive privilege works. The Supremee Court in U.S. v Nixon (1974) ruled that Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, > we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide. Obviously, the appointment of United States Attorneys is neither a military, diplomatic, nor sensitive national security secret, and hence executive privilege has only limited application. But why take my or the Supreme Court's word for it? Here, let White House spokesman Tony Snow explain it to you in an Op-Ed he wrote during the Clinton hearings back in 1998: Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up. Posted by: Stefan on March 23, 2007 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINKFor one thing, when Nixon fired his Attorney General and his deputy, that was a major scandal that was a key step towards his impeachment. There's a reason why it was called the Saturday Night Massacre. But the key difference between Bush's firing of the US Attorneys and other dismissals is the fact that Bush, unlike even Nixon with his Attorney General, doesn't have to have his new nominees approved by the Senate. This distinction, which received so much attention at the start of the scandal, has largely been forgotten. If Bush had to have his replacement candidates approved by the Senate he might have been more reluctant to fire the prosecutors in the first place since he couldn't replace them with partisan hacks. Posted by: Guscat on March 23, 2007 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINKPowerline is written by three elite lawyers, and they've done some excellent work showing how incompetent Fitzgerald is. Just go to powerlineblog.com and search for Fitzgerald.
Again, this wasn't illegal. Senator Specter put it into the Patriot Act legislation and it passed. Democrats actually voted to make it the law of the land. Had I accepted the initial offer to take a US Attorney's position here in the Northeast when I was approached to do so in early 2005, it was understood that I would slip into the position behind this legislation and avoid having to answer to Congress as to my past indiscretions and my lack of a law degree. Posted by: Norman Rogers on March 23, 2007 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINKYeah, Chickenegg, Fitzgerald just screams incompetence, doesn]t he? And we all know incompetence is a firing offence. Posted by: Kenji on March 23, 2007 at 11:34 AM | PERMALINKIt's not the damn firing that's the scandal! It's Karl Rove pressuring USAs to go easy on guilty Republicans, prosecute innocent Democrats, and throw cases like the tobacco case! The firing is just the symptom! Posted by: grytpype on March 23, 2007 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINKSure it's worth asking a few questions under oath, but that doesn't necessarily trump executive privilege. Here's what Republican Congressman Dan Burton said about this claim during the Clinton imbroglio in 1998: You know, the president could solve a lot of this problem if he wouldn't hide behind executive privilege, if he'd just come out and tell the American people the truth. Republicans: against executive privilege before they were for it. Posted by: Stefan on March 23, 2007 at 11:40 AM | PERMALINKAH, "Powerline is written by three elite lawyers, and they've done some excellent work showing how incompetent Fitzgerald is. Just go to powerlineblog.com and search for Fitzgerald." So, you are slimely implying that Fitzgerald should have uncovered more dirt on the Plame outing? His incompetancy prevented him from doing his job and having the entire OVP tossed into the clink? Posted by: Sky-Ho on March 23, 2007 at 11:40 AM | PERMALINK ...to knock some sense into the liberals who may accost me when I travel to the Republican National Convention next year. I am here to correct the record, offer encouragement and advice, and I enjoy every word he writes. Hey Norman, Kinsley shoud a stuck with sex research. At least there he did some good work.
It feels like victory, sir. And had I taken that position as the US Attorney, I would indict you for using the Internet to defame a US citizen. I would indict you so fast your head would spin. Posted by: Norman Rogers on March 23, 2007 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINKIt is a classic catch 22 situation -- fix the problem with elections, but the problem you have to fix is that the elections are not fair. That's some catch that catch 22.
Meanwhile: Explosive new vote fraud developments continue to rock Ohio and Florida by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman Breaking news in vote fraud cases in both Ohio and Florida are feeding a firestorm of controversy that is likely to continue escalating, with major implications for the 2008 election and the future of e-voting machines. In Ohio, Jennifer Brunner, the newly elected Secretary of State, has received two of the four resignations she requested from the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections (BOE). The two Democrats on the Board, Edward Coaxum, Jr. and Loree Soggs, have complied with her call for their departures from Cleveland's scandal-ridden election authority. [snip] http://www.smirkingchimp.com/ Posted by: MsNThrope on March 23, 2007 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINKNo more distractions. Now, Mussarif al-Tikriti just confessed yesterday under torture to crucifying the Christ, and torpedoing production of Surge Soda! Posted by: absent observer on March 23, 2007 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINKby the turncoat betrayer, John Dean. 'One further disclosure: I have never been an advocate of executive privilege, except as it might relate to the most sensitive national security information. To the contrary, you show me a White House aide who does not want his conversations and advice to the president revealed, and I will show you someone who should not be talking with or advising a president.' - John W. Dean We need a few more of this kind of 'turncoat', IMHO. Posted by: MsNThrope on March 23, 2007 at 12:12 PM | PERMALINKmhr, keep enjoying the fluffy pink clouds in your dream world. They are very pretty this time of year. Posted by: Kenji on March 23, 2007 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINKmhr: A man has been "improperly let go!" Translation: The Bush administration has obstructed justice to lessen the likelihood that GOP operatives will be convicted of crimes they committed and that Democratic operatives will be falsely accused of crimes they didn't commit and there is nothing improper with that because Bush is a law unto himself under the Patriot Act which Democrats voted for and obstruction of justice by a Republican is no crime. Posted by: Google_This on March 23, 2007 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINKFormer Deputy Interior Secretary J. Steven Griles pleaded guilty Friday to obstruction of justice in a Senate committee’s investigation, becoming the highest-ranking Bush administration official convicted in the Jack Abramoff corruption scandal. The 'Jay' Response: Nothing incriminating uncovered here. Move along, now. None of the investigations into Bush administration officials, friends, and close supporters has ever resulted in any incriminating evidence or convictions. I know I lie, but I can't help it, I'm a conservative. Posted by: Google_This on March 23, 2007 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINKmhr, I'm conducting an informal poll. Is there any crime, illegality, or misconduct committed by the Bush Cabal that you wouldn't shamelessly apologize for? Anything at all that you might condemn? Just curious. Posted by: ckelly on March 23, 2007 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINKThe United States is criticizing Italy for its deal to free five Taliban prisoners in exchange for the release of an Italian journalist. But it was A-OK for Reagan to trade arms to our enemies for hostages! Posted by: Google_This on March 23, 2007 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINKFormer Deputy Interior Secretary J. Steven Griles pleaded guilty Friday to obstruction of justice in a Senate committee’s investigation, becoming the highest-ranking Bush administration official convicted in the Jack Abramoff corruption scandal. And I can only add one small phrase to that. 'so far' "Eventually, money wins in politics." Jack Abramoff Posted by: MsNThrope on March 23, 2007 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINKharry: Congress is currently identified by the public, strictly accurately or not, as "Democratic." If its approval rating has dropped to 28 percent, this is not insignificant. Considering the GOP's congressional approval rating was 15% before the Democratic takeover, this is hardly a concern or even significant at this point. Call me back when it drops into the teens or at least put it in historical perspective with other congresses. The dynamic between the approval ratings of individual politicians and a body politic have been fully discussed and it's apples and oranges no matter how you look at it. And beyond that, as cmdicely points out, the appropriate comparator is what do the voters who vote for the politician think of the politician. That is, what's Pelosi's approval rating among those who are eligible to vote for her versus Bush's approval rating among those eligible to vote for him. Bush and his GOP supporters by identification with Bush will pay a political price with the voters as reflected by his low ratings; no individual Democratic member of Congress, other than Lieberman, will because they won't be linked to Bush and the voter's view of Congress as a whole is rarely reflective of their view of the member of Congress who represents them. Thus, not only does Jay compare apples and oranges, he sites a statistic (approval rate of Congress) that has no practical meaning for most members of Congress, but only those who are individually borderline in their home district support, and has no meaning whatsoever as long as the GOP's approval rating as a party remains lower than the Democrats. Finally, the public's approval of Congress is not necessarily equivalent to the public's approval of the party that controls Congress, since the question invites the public to evaluate the contribution of both parties to congressional effectiveness. But that is all Jay and his fellow wingers have to hold onto these days, so expect to hear it a lot. Posted by: Google_This on March 23, 2007 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK | |